Obama wants higher taxes. He wants less freedom for people to make their own decisions, especially economically. He's a purveyor of the "image of the US in the world" tripe. He's for windfall profit taxes, which punish lawful profit. He's for sweeping gun bans. He's for socialized medicine. He's against us getting the oil under our feet and off our shores, ensuring higher gas prices. His proposals are what they are... old, tired liberal solutions. I'm sorry it's that way... but he's your liberal candidate.

And add to your list with scaling graphics... it is also rather bad form to alter someone's post in what looks like a direct quote. If you want to ask a question about "milk" then ask it, but don't portray your bullshit as being from my keyboard. Thanks.

Of course, you really should be ignoring me, remember... as you put it... "I'm just some guy hiding behind a screen name."

If I'm following this, a $2400 tax hike obliges the over $250,000 a year earning Jubelum to "lay off workers"?

First of all, you don't know what I make, and how my finances are structured. So sticka to whatcha know, k? If my capital gains go up (as Obama has advocated) I will not have as much money to keep people employed by cashing out investments when times are slow... and they are slowing. The government is going to get that money, not my workers. And if my corporate income taxes go up, guess what... the same thing... people will have to walk "for the common good" of the rest of them. Had it not been for the tax cut my wife and I received under the Bush plan, I would have had to have cut healthcare benefits for my employees. But hey... you'll just fix it by socializing medicine, right?

You see, you people think you can tax producers and employers as much as you want... with no real world ramifications, and then you call those of us who take the risk and start companies and employ people "greedy." Well, newsflash Mr. Liberal... just because someone has a company does not make them "rich" or "greedy" by default... And to think you get all indignant when I tell you that American liberals are into penalizing risk, reward, and profit in our system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

How much do you make a year? I'm betting 6 figures total family income.

You too, vinea. Six figures? Not even CLOSE, pal. I have numerous employees that take home more than I do. Do you own a business, vinea? Ever built one or more from the ground up? Ever handled the books and related decisions for one?

Quote:

Doesn't that make you just an asshole?

An asshole? ... no, it makes you guilty of yet another misrepresenting my position. You used to be a lot better than this, adda. Election season does this to you every cycle it seems.

Psst... you can "change" without becoming an Obama-Kennedy-Pelosi-Schumer socialist. We could, I dunno, bring back the rule of law, respect for the Constitution, shrink the government, and enjoy more "live-let-live." If some of you can handle all that. \

Psst... you can "change" without becoming an Obama-Kennedy-Pelosi-Schumer socialist. We could, I dunno, bring back the rule of law, respect for the Constitution, shrink the government, and enjoy more "live-let-live." If some of you can handle all that. \

Well the libertarian ideal isn't the only way to that place. Also it's sounds like you're the one that may have a burr in your saddle.

By the way I don't think they're socialists. Not even close.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Jubelum, are you saying his liberal policies - higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class, pay-as-you-go spending, greater social safety net, skepticism towards trade deals, no Guantanamo, no torture, get out of Iraq - don't represent a change from these Republican years we've had?

It's just not true that he's running as a new Democrat. He is clearly not running against his party like Clinton did in 1992. It's not happening. He's neither deceptive about his policies nor is he proposing New Dem/conservatism-lite policies. He's a liberal, and he's running as a liberal.

I only see one same-old-playbook here...

You forgot the really important topic slipped in amongst the others that have a bearing on everyone: taking guns away. The other things don't really matter.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

What Obama really believes... is in the value of socialism. High taxes. Less freedom. "Taking the USA 'down a notch'." Punishing lawful profit. Taking guns from law-abiding people. Ruining the most advanced healthcare system in the world. Paying $6-10 a gallon. Oh, and "CHANGE!" - back to the "old change" of LBJ and Carter. Obama also believes whatever George Soros and crew put up on his teleprompter.

This guy is so far out left that he's going to have a really hard time running from his extremely liberal, though very limited, voting record.

How'd you feel about when you were voting for Bush 8 years ago? Did you change your affiliation 4 years ago?

The GOP began their slide with me about the time of the PATRIOT ACT and things have only degraded with every huge spending bill. Amnesty? Another nail. Open borders? Another nail. Global warming pandering? Another nail. Being "Democrat lite?" Another nail.

As Chairman Duncan said... the GOP does not really worry much about that "1 in 10"- as they stupidly assume that 90% of their base supports McCain on a simple party-line. It's the makings of a massive clusterfuck.

First of all, you don't know what I make, and how my finances are structured. So sticka to whatcha know, k? If my capital gains go up (as Obama has advocated) I will not have as much money to keep people employed by cashing out investments when times are slow... and they are slowing.

You're paying out of your own pocket to cover payroll? Ah...not the way I'd go. But as you say, I don't know your specifics but I'd not have structured things that way.

Quote:

The government is going to get that money, not my workers. And if my corporate income taxes go up, guess what... the same thing... people will have to walk "for the common good" of the rest of them.

Your corporate income is taxed at the federal corporate rate (15% to 39%) except for dividends (which is what? An effective 4.5% rate?) and whatever other taxes apply (holding companies, accumulated earnings, etc). For a personal service company it was like 35% across the board.

For my state it was a flat rate that I forget. 8% or so.

I know just enough to be dangerous at tax time but I don't believe you get a long term cap gain benefit and income was just income.

Quote:

Had it not been for the tax cut my wife and I received under the Bush plan, I would have had to have cut healthcare benefits for my employees. But hey... you'll just fix it by socializing medicine, right?

You paid for heathcare benefits for any significant number of workers from the savings on your personal tax cut? Wow! Can I know your insurance company because the family business could actually afford to provide healthcare benefits for the employees (mostly family members).

I'm thinking you're doing pretty good.

Quote:

You see, you people think you can tax producers and employers as much as you want... with no real world ramifications, and then you call those of us who take the risk and start companies and employ people "greedy." Well, newsflash Mr. Liberal... just because someone has a company does not make them "rich" or "greedy" by default... And to think you get all indignant when I tell you that American liberals are into penalizing risk, reward, and profit in our system.

You too, vinea. Six figures? Not even CLOSE, pal. I have numerous employees that take home more than I do. Do you own a business, vinea?

Not currently.

Assuming that your business is semi-successful with numerous employees your effective compensation is probably not bad in comparison to a salaried employee.

Most millionaires are small business owners, not folks doing a 9-5. I'm not poor but I'm betting that you are worth more on paper than I am and probably have access to better cash flow in most years. The "take home more than I do" may be true but not the whole picture.

That you've got heath coverage means you're ahead of the small business curve. That your employees have coverage means you likely aren't doing personal services (well, at least not certain kinds) or a family restaurant.

Quote:

Ever built one or more from the ground up?

Yes. Enough to wonder about some of your statements.

Quote:

Ever handled the books and related decisions for one?

No. That's what the accountant was for and the partner with the MBA. Decisions, yes to a degree.

In any case, the democrats aren't much less business friendly to corporations or out to get small business owners whatever the propaganda. They know where campaign $$$ come from.

What we need is a CEO salary cap as percentage of corporate after-tax profit, with a CEO salary minimum being set as well, to keep things fair. CEOs who lose money should not be rewarded. CEOs who make money should.

We also need a worker salary minimum as a percentage of corporate after-tax profit, with market determination of the minimum salary for a company in the red, as well as standard minimum wage.

The biggest economic problem in this country by FAR is the Sam Walton economic model. Paying workers their fair share will raise their spending power, and improve the economy far more than anything else the government can do.

You're paying out of your own pocket to cover payroll? Ah...not the way I'd go. But as you say, I don't know your specifics but I'd not have structured things that way.

Yes, we have made the decision in our company to do the very best we can for our employees, because we have found that they are more loyal and more productive. To this point, we've been about 80/20 on the good side of the situation. Healthcare benefits for employee and family... my wife and I as owners do sometimes lower our take-home to cover payments for employee healthcare. When I started my company, I had no insurance... I had some yardwork money and a Mac... and if we as a company can take the burden off of people, we do. That's why comments about "boat payments" from the asshole gallery here make me want to throw a huge "fuck you" to some people. There are a lot of ethical, caring, hard-working people who own companies and make profits that don't go to a fleet of Escalades or new boats or vacation houses. Those of us in the small business set know that our people are our greatest asset, and we're tired of the constant Montgomery Burns caricatures that are tossed about so casually. When we finally say ENOUGH! to the taxes and regulation, then we hear "you greedy capitalist asshole..." - usually from a liberal democrat. (thanks adda, for demonstrating my point here)

All of my fellow eeevil capitalists in the chamber of commerce continually tell me I'm an idiot for "not paying myself first... ," but our leadership agrees that the current plan is more consistent with our values and vision. Over the winter, we cashed out some investments to make payroll, taxes, and benefits for Q4. Higher cap gains would have meant more liquidating of those resources, which would affect credit ratings and the financial health of the business. I don't want to get to the day where I have to tell my employees that their benefits are being cut, to save benefits for my kids... because of a Washington tax policy.

Quote:

You paid for heathcare benefits for any significant number of workers from the savings on your personal tax cut? Wow! Can I know your insurance company because the family business could actually afford to provide healthcare benefits for the employees (mostly family members).

That tax cut allowed us to keep dental and vision in the family plans. (BCBS-TX and/or Humana)

Quote:

Assuming that your business is semi-successful with numerous employees your effective compensation is probably not bad in comparison to a salaried employee.

Yes, but as most small business people will tell you, the vast majority of "profit" is rolled right back into the business for growth and expansion.

Quote:

That you've got heath coverage means you're ahead of the small business curve. That your employees have coverage means you likely aren't doing personal services (well, at least not certain kinds) or a family restaurant.

We're ahead of the curve because we've set benefits for our employees as a priority. We hire and retain very well, and the only thing that can, IMHO, upset this situation is a series of tax increases that would force cuts in staff or benefits.

Quote:

In any case, the democrats aren't much less business friendly to corporations or out to get small business owners whatever the propaganda. They know where campaign $$$ come from.

I'm sorry I can't agree with you... almost every time I hear about a tax increase that will affect me, my family, my company, and my employees, it is being proposed by a Democrat. And to be fair... those calls for tax increases, in part, come from an overspending Republican majority... those long-faded loyalties which we've already covered.

The feeling is mutual, tonton... with you sitting right there front and center in the asshole gallery I just referred to.
I'll take being a free-market asshole over an authoritarian one any day.

You see... that's what you don't get. This is not a black and white world. Where I stand in "pure authoritarian" vs. "pure economic libertarian" is pretty much in the middle of the gray area.

It's only the colorblind (grayblind?) who can't see that this is not a polarized set of issues, and that the right solution includes aspects of government regulation, as well as free market forces.

I keep using the term "economic anarchy", and that's exactly what pure free-market capitalism results in. Actually it would be more of a feudalism. With the rich controlling EVERYTHING, no minimum wage, and people working 80 hours a week for $1 an hour, and still begging on the streets and breaking into houses.

Imagine what Microsoft would do if they weren't regulated. Imagine what the Waltons would do if they were allowed to pay people $1 an hour.

the right solution includes aspects of government regulation, as well as free market forces

Correct. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It's just that you consistently draw the line in favor of more regulation, and I draw the line more toward the market working.

Quote:

I keep using the term "economic anarchy", and that's exactly what pure free-market capitalism results in. Actually it would be more of a feudalism. With the rich controlling EVERYTHING, no minimum wage, and people working 80 hours a week for $1 an hour, and still begging on the streets and breaking into houses.

The Upton Sinclair days are over. Long gone. Even in the "pure" markets by todays standards, there are still regulatory mechanisms. It's like saying "free market health care has failed..." when we don't have a free market to being with. It's already being manipulated and regulated, for better or worse. We are much closer to over-regulating than we are to a true "free market."

As it always is with you and I, tonton, the question usually comes down to what is reasonable government interference... be that with rights, taxes, regulation, etc. You'll give them the benefit of the doubt. History prevents me from doing so reflexively.

Correct. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It's just that you consistently draw the line in favor of more regulation, and I draw the line more toward the market working.

The Upton Sinclair days are over. Long gone. Even in the "pure" markets by todays standards, there are still regulatory mechanisms. It's like saying "free market health care has failed..." when we don't have a free market to being with. It's already being manipulated and regulated, for better or worse. We are much closer to over-regulating than we are to a true "free market."

As it always is with you and I, tonton, the question usually comes down to what is reasonable government interference... be that with rights, taxes, regulation, etc. You'll give them the benefit of the doubt. History prevents me from doing so reflexively.

No, I don't give them the "benefit of the doubt". I look at things through my own eyes. I disagree with government economic policy just as much as you do. We just want them to lean in opposite directions.

Looking at economies around the world, there is a reason I would go toward more socialism than we have now. You have no example of fee market success to go in the direction you prefer. Basically you're making your mind up on "faith" here. "Faith" that the free market would work better than just a little more Socialism, without any historical data backing up that faith.

The data shows that more Socialism works better than what we have now. Would less socialism work better than what we have now? There is no historical data that supports such an idea.

Looking at economies around the world, there is a reason I would go toward more socialism than we have now. You have no example of fee market success to go in the direction you prefer.

Um, tonton, what happens when you remove the profit motive? I mean, it's silly to ask you to admit that free markets benefit people... you oppose the free market. I bet you don't mind it much when you cash your paycheck, though. The United States free market has created a standard of living and level of freedom that is the envy on the world... but let me guess... "it's a failure," right? This whole thing, version 43.5, is such a waste of time with you and I. I don't think that socialism brings out the best in people. You think that free markets bring out the worst. This is a useless debate.

Quote:

Basically you're making your mind up on "faith" here. "Faith" that the free market would work better than just a little more Socialism, without any historical data backing up that faith.

Um, shall we compare the standards of living between the US and USSR? Shall we compare the things that the American free market has created and invented vs. the socialist world?

Quote:

The data shows that more Socialism works better than what we have now. Would less socialism work better than what we have now? There is no historical data that supports such an idea.

<brass section> "works better" - this ought to be fun- "data," please... (and be sure to include that one on suicide rates)

Um, tonton, what happens when you remove the profit motive? I mean, it's silly to ask you to admit that free markets benefit people... you oppose the free market. I bet you don't mind it much when you cash your paycheck, though. The United States free market has created a standard of living and level of freedom that is the envy on the world... but let me guess... "it's a failure," right? This whole thing, version 43.5, is such a waste of time with you and I. I don't think that socialism brings out the best in people. You think that free markets bring out the worst. This is a useless debate.

Um, shall we compare the standards of living between the US and USSR? Shall we compare the things that the American free market has created and invented vs. the socialist world?

<brass section> "works better" - this ought to be fun- "data," please... (and be sure to include that one on suicide rates)

Only about half the time. He totally missed the boat on some things.

My gosh, Jub. Do you honestly argue that there's no "profit motive" in places like Denmark and Sweden? It has definitely not been removed.

We're talking about social democracy here. Why are you bringing up the USSR? I'll tell you why. FUD. Either that or complete ignorance about the difference between Socialist Democracy and Totalitarian Communism.

Yes, we have made the decision in our company to do the very best we can for our employees, because we have found that they are more loyal and more productive.

That was our policy too and it served us well. We simply never mixed personal and corporate finances. Subsidizing the company directly would risk piercing the corporate veil which would eliminate the point of some of the hoops we jumped through.

While somewhat more complex than a limited partnership or sole proprietorship avoidance of personal liability was important for us. I don't recall exactly why we went C-Corp vs S-Corp/LLC but I believe paranoia, delusions of grandeur and taxes were involved.

Obviously, I was the techie and not the busines guy.

Quote:

That's why comments about "boat payments" from the asshole gallery here make me want to throw a huge "fuck you" to some people.

Eh. The casualty rate is so high that most of the small business owners that are visible do fairly well. Those with struggling businesses often become statistics. Hence the impression.

If you survive, most live well. Certainly there are more than a few that just scrape by but you know in the lean years they won't be around anymore.

Quote:

There are a lot of ethical, caring, hard-working people who own companies and make profits that don't go to a fleet of Escalades or new boats or vacation houses.

I guess it depends on which circle of owners you hang with. I note that you've carefully sidestepped comparisons of our net worth.

Not that I'm prying but neither of us are poor. Neither of us are close to that median income or more importantly that median net worth.

Your employees might be "middle income" but with the risk and effort of owning a business go the rewards.

Quote:

Yes, but as most small business people will tell you, the vast majority of "profit" is rolled right back into the business for growth and expansion.

Yes. Of course, as you mentioned, many owners don't forget to pay themselves first.

Quote:

I'm sorry I can't agree with you... almost every time I hear about a tax increase that will affect me, my family, my company, and my employees, it is being proposed by a Democrat. And to be fair... those calls for tax increases, in part, come from an overspending Republican majority... those long-faded loyalties which we've already covered.

We obviously have/had different kinds of businesses so the perceptions are likely different. The "family" business is a restaurant and that's completely different than what I used to be part of.

I just don't think that we get anything more than lip service from either party. Tax cuts or tax increases are marginal relative to the grand scheme of things.

Um, shall we compare the standards of living between the US and USSR? Shall we compare the things that the American free market has created and invented vs. the socialist world?

Fallacy. The "socialist world" is Europe and many of those nations have high if not higher standards of living. Granted most of these are small countries with the larger socialist countries more so-so. I wouldn't want to work the way the French do for example. On the other hand, France works better than the USSR ever did.

But a "little more socialist" is like being a little more like Europe in general. Or Canada.

Fallacy. The "socialist world" is Europe and many of those nations have high if not higher standards of living. Granted most of these are small countries with the larger socialist countries more so-so. I wouldn't want to work the way the French do for example. On the other hand, France works better than the USSR ever did.

But a "little more socialist" is like being a little more like Europe in general. Or Canada.

The "communist world" was a disaster except for China.

I always like to watch people argue the merits of free market capitalism vs/ socialism and argue the extremes and sometimes even the shades of grey.

It is just a fun sport so I would estimate many of you all would agree. I would be willing to bet that we all are pretty well opinionated if we admitted it...

I had to share a thought I had one day and it really is a bad example but it is a thought I had..

I thought about countries like Hotels / motels one day and thought that in a sense there are some hotels that "tax" you more" when you check in ( charge higher rate ) but it could be argued if for example this hotel was a really posh nice resort in the right location with views / unbelievable pools, huge common areas (hotel lobby, bars, piano being played, bellmen dressed formally doing their job, staff all top notch professional etc. strawberries and champaign from France in multi room suite one can hardly deny the rich experience of such a place.

Now I thought to myself that a hotel like this would be remembered perhaps more so than a Hampton inn or some other "run of the mill" solid, consistent, clean but not anything special kind of place that charges less "tax" to use.

In other words the really nice classy, polished, enjoyable, high quality, experience as compared to ordinary, clean and reliable "gets the job done" experience.

In fact to make the ordinary even more ordinary this Hampton inn could be located right next to an air port and you hear planes overhead all night. It is real world ordinary but it is "low tax".

I think what it all boils down to is a matter of affordability of the tax. How many people can afford the high tax hotel?

What about the rest of them how are they living?

I see countries in these terms at times. It makes me ask many questions. How many in given country actually experience the first rate experience and at what cost to what?

What about those at the bottom?

Do they have health insurance but live in a 600 sq ft flat in a meaningless tower in a ghetto with no car.

There are endless questions to be raised if we are all honest.

I think one thing remains true is that there is no free lunch.

Each hotel requires the admittance "tax" and our evaluation only begins with a million questions that could be asked about a million different things relating to the experience all levels of given society enjoy.

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

The Patent Office is now a wasteful outdated one? My brother, who works as an examiner, will love to hear that.

The patent system in the US sucks - it totally stifles innovation when people do stuff like patent software algorithms (see Bezos "1 click" assault on the patent system). Patents are a good idea, but our system needs an overhaul.

And from previous posts - yes, high gas prices are a good thing, they encourage alternative energy research and will end up with us burning less oil in the long run, which is why I burn as much gas as I can afford to. The only downside to high gas prices is that it hurts poor people, and if it hurts them enough then society collapses. I was just up in the North Carolina mountains, seed potato sales are up 60% over last year - the poor people are adjusting in just the right way (rejecting non-local food and cutting back on SUV sales) to prevent that. Low oil prices are bad ===> oil conservation or subsidies are bad ideas.

I have no problem with anything attributed to Obama in this thread so far - yes, we need a safty net, yes - it is time to cut all oil company subsidies (they will make plenty of profit anyway). Free trade is great, but only when it is looked at carefully - last I heard China was trying to kill our semiconductor industry by dumping chips at below market cost, you can't let that kind of thing happen.

And the Republicans can't complain about higher taxes - you all got us into a mess by collecting too little income and spending too much on the invasion of Iraq, and now you have to start paying down your debts - you know, the Republican party is supposed to be "the party of personal responsibility"? How come that personal responsibility is not showing up in this case? You guys are responsible for about $5 billion of new debt in the last eight years.

As this thread demonstrates, the right doesn't really have anywhere to go with their "liberal" scare rhetoric, this election.

They've had the dial at 11, at "OMFG!!!Most!Liberal!Ever!Commie!Socialist!Mostest !Ever!Evar!!!!!", for so long that it's just background noise at this point.

Uh, except he's shown he's exactly that liberal. It's reality, not noise. This goes to my point as well...that being any criticism of Obama is automatically dismissed as a right wing smear. So now we can't talk about who he is, NOR his political beliefs. The Fairy Tale continues.

Quote:

Trouble being, the American people agree with Obama,

No, they don't. They agree with the marketing campaign of Change! They don't agree with him at all.

Quote:

and all the Republicans have is trying to convince them that he's something far more sinister than "liberal", that is, a black liberal with some kind of kill whitey secret agenda.

There it is! The race card. Congrats. Tell me..which Republicans are campaigning on race, and how?

Quote:

What I believe we have here is an extremist, minority ideology that managed, post 9/11, to convince itself that it was mainstream.

You might as well be talking about the Democrats. They did exactly that...by lying about what they really stand for, just like they have for 30 years.

Quote:

Now they've lost the knack for toning it down a bit, when speaking to the country at large, and the American people are being treated to a lot of highly unflattering shrieking and gibbering that is manifestly at odds with reality.

Well, you know what the antidote to that is, don't you...CHANGE!

Quote:

SDW, is there anyway we could take up a collection to send you on a nationwide tour, explaining your misgivings? You, and any of your like-minded friends? Nothing will ensure Obama's election more surely than a full-on dose of "Can you believe it? The American worker deserves better? What a bunch of liberal crap! What a bunch of commies! Or fascists! Both! Everything bad! Stop laughing!"

Or maybe we could actually explore Obama's beliefs, record and proposals instead of giving him a free ride by just about the entire MSM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flounder

SDW, the point is when you quote without giving the link, people have to go hunting if they want to read the whole story, and context that may be left out of your snippets. Since you had the quotes, clearly you could have provided the actual links, with minimal to no extra effort. It leaves the impression that you're intentionally making it more difficult for people to access the entire story.

In a way, giving the source but not the link is more annoying than if you hadn't given the source at all.

Right...because those quotes don't convey the true meaning? I think what you really mean is "please post the quote in context so I can take it OUT of context, twisting the meaning into exactly the opposite of that which was intended. And don't act like I don't post links, either. I didn't this time. I often do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

First, it was Bush and the Republicans who passed the law making Bush's tax cuts expire so they didn't look as bad on the books.

That's true. Additionally, it gave them an issue to run on next time.

Quote:

Obama had nothing to do with that. Second, Obama is only going to let the tax cuts on people making over $250,000 expire, which is only about 1% of the population. Third, yeah, it's great to have a free lunch like we've been doing, but sometimes the adults have to come back and put things in order. And only a conservative would consider tax cuts "love."

I'll bet you $100 right now that tax cuts for people like me will expire. "Middle class" will become "those who need it" and the cutoff will be at about $30,000 a year. Just watch.

Quote:

That's just not accurate. I've been following things pretty closely, and Obama is most definitely not running as a centrist. Sure, a uniter, but that doesn't imply he's not a liberal. Bill Clinton ran ads in 1992 calling himself a new kind of Democrat, saying that he supported the death penalty and the 1991 Iraq war. That's not the campaign Obama is running.

So he's running as a liberal then? He's claiming he wants middle class tax cuts, which of course he doesn't. He's claiming he doesn't support runaway government program spending, which of course he does. What is he running as?

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

Please show me where Barack Obama has said he is going to raise taxes on the middle class. That was the claim. Ending the Bush tax cuts (which we're just going to have to pay back, eventually) does not necessarily mean that tax rates on the MC will the altered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by midwinter

Indeed. Salient points:

1) The tax cuts are set to expire in 2010. Period. It is not a question of raising or lowering.

2) Obama wants to let them expire for individuals making over $250K, such as Jube and his middle class pockets.

3) Obama wants to give the MC tax breaks.

4) Obama wants to raise cap gains and dividends taxes.

1. Intellectually dishonest in the extreme. If they expire, my rate goes up...at lot. Certain deductions go away. My taxes (and I am definitely middle income) will go up dramatically. Don't sit there and tell me "it's not really an increase." Shit, you might as well run for office. You sound like the Dems we already have.

2. I'll bet you $100 as well. If Obama gets elected, my taxes as a middle income person WILL go up. I won't; even get into the stupidity of raising the rate on those making that much money.

3. I won't count my chickens. Bill Clinton campaigned on the same thing. Guess what he did to the middle class?

4. Ohh...an awesome idea. I'm sure no one who is middle class will be affected by that.

What's funny about this is that we're arguing about Obama being a liberal Democrat? Really? You just pointed out that he wants to raise taxes. That's what Democrats do. It's all they know. He's publicly said we need to redistribute wealth in a more equitable way. I mean...not a liberal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

When you don't like the replies you get personal which is just so laughable!

So Obama is a champion of change and the middle class. Given how things are out there I'm still waiting to hear how that's bad.

I get personal!?!?! Wow.

As for Obama...that's the point: He's not a champion of the middle class. He says he is. He may be a champion for the poor lower middle class...at least that's what he proposes. The proposals won't work, but we'll discuss that another time.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Thanks for telling me. I think this country needs someone liberal in this environment. Thanks to your heads up... now I know who to vote for.

You see, what you don't realize, is that to me and 200 million or so other Americans, "Liberal" is not a smear. And to many of us... probably about 150 million or so of us... it's actually something we WANT.

The ones who scream, "Liberal? OMFG I can't vote for a fucking LIBBERRRAALLL!!!!" were never going to vote for any Democratic nominee, ever, anyway. Yet you think that this 30% of Americans are the only "real" Americans. Let me suggest that you might just be the one who is out of touch here.

It's not the candidates that are campaigning on race. It's the bloggers and the media. If you have to ask how Fox News is frantically spreading race as the major issue in this campaign, then you're really ignorant.

I keep using the term "economic anarchy", and that's exactly what pure free-market capitalism results in. Actually it would be more of a feudalism. With the rich controlling EVERYTHING, no minimum wage, and people working 80 hours a week for $1 an hour, and still begging on the streets and breaking into houses.

Yes, you do keep saying it. But it doesn't become any more true by your (or other's) repetition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Imagine what the Waltons would do if they were allowed to pay people $1 an hour.

It's not the candidates that are campaigning on race. It's the bloggers and the media. If you have to ask how Fox News is frantically spreading race as the major issue in this campaign, then you're really ignorant.

I want to try this.

I make a statement, more like an insult posing as a statement. If you don't roll over and just believe my assertion, then you are also an insult.

I've heard of circular reasoning, but that is more like circular insulting.

I've read that the bloggers at Huffington Post and Daily Kos are eating children and burning kittens for heat. If you have to ask how I know this, then you're really ignorant.

Right...because those quotes don't convey the true meaning? I think what you really mean is "please post the quote in context so I can take it OUT of context, twisting the meaning into exactly the opposite of that which was intended. And don't act like I don't post links, either. I didn't this time. I often do.

No, I mean simply what I said. Let us have easy access to the story you're quoting. It may have additional information other posters would like to discuss. You know, fostering richer dialog and conversation for those who want to read the whole story and go more in depth.

I say what I mean. I don't hide meaning between the lines.

Why didn't you provide the links to your sources? It clearly would have taken zero extra effort.

So why? To intentionally antagonize people? To deny people full context? Because it was from a secondary source and you hadn't read the full context yourself so you decided to list the primary source instead of linking to the secondary source?

Thanks for telling me. I think this country needs someone liberal in this environment. Thanks to your heads up... now I know who to vote for.

You see, what you don't realize, is that to me and 200 million or so other Americans, "Liberal" is not a smear. And to many of us... probably about 150 million or so of us... it's actually something we WANT.

The ones who scream, "Liberal? OMFG I can't vote for a fucking LIBBERRRAALLL!!!!" were never going to vote for any Democratic nominee, ever, anyway.

Well first, thanks for acknowledging it. It seems some here can't. But let me address the next point. Americans don't want liberal policies. The country is basically conservative at its roots. What we have now is anger. Anger over gas prices, the economy, Iraq, Katrina, over-spending, etc. Naturally, people do want change. Obama is capitalizing on that. All he has to do is yell Change! and people come running. He's charismatic, well-spoken and The First Electable Black Candidate(TM).

Where you are mistaken is on the policy end. The country opposes high taxes. It opposes negotiating with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. It wants more domestic oil drilling. It opposes gay marriage. This next list address some of those points, and adds more: Traditionally conservative positions are in bold.

From American Solutions.com:

Quote:

English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)

We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)

The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)

Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)

Keeping the reference to One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)

Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)

We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8)

We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8)

Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)

We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

I don't necessarily like how all of those are worded, mind you, but it gets the point across. The American people want lower, simpler taxes. They want energy independence. They oppose illegal immigration. They want English as the language of government. None of these are liberal positions.

Who was it that said the GOP has fooled itself into thinking it's mainstream? The Democrats have done that one, friend.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.